I am Gentrification

I drive a Prius in Pico-Union.

I look white.

I am gentrification.

That is all.

My Comments on the Bike Plan

The following is my response to the City's recently released Bike Plan maps, which were released for public comment about a month and a half ago. Honestly, it has taken me this long to write to the city because the plan is 1) so confusing and 2) so underwhelming that it's hard to know where to start. But I sat down and tried to comprehend the mess of color coded and overlaid lines and then wrote the following letter.

Dear Ms. Bibas and Mr. Turner,

I am a commuter cyclist who lives in Pico-Union, about a mile west of downtown. I ride about 14 miles a day: it's 12 miles round-trip to my job in West Hollywood, and I tack on another 2 miles for errands. Next year I will be a graduate student at UCLA and will be doing the downtown-Westwood ride at least 3 times a week. Thus, my main areas of concern in looking at this bike map are East-West connections in the "Central" region (as you've broken it down). I find it glaringly devoid of those.

I usually ride on Olympic between Hoover and San Vicente, and San Vicente between Olympic and Orlando. Olympic is a horrific road that came up multiple times during the Transportation Committee meeting, which I attended. It is the quickest, most direct route to both my job and my school, and the plan proposes no improvements to it. Furthermore, I'm confused as to why it is not marked as a Class III Bike Route. In the April 2006 Bike Map distributed by the Metro, Olympic between downtown and La Cienega is listed as a Class III. Has this distinction (and the accompanying Share the Road signage) been removed?

The proposed improvements to 4th and 8th Streets to make them Bicycle-Friendly streets will help. However, the design standards for bicycle-friendly streets have not yet been released so it is impossible to tell what the impact will be. Neither 4th nor 8th extends very far, so there is a need for a longer east-west connection.

3rd and Fountain, two roads that I ride often, are proposed to be Shared Roadways. However, the shared roadway distinction for 3rd only lasts for about 2 miles. In my experience cyclists need to go farther than that. In addition, as I mentioned above, Olympic was a Shared Roadway as of April 2006, and that did not make it a safe or enjoyable road to ride. The design standards for Shared Roadways will determine whether this distinction actually protects cyclists. I add my voice to the many who support sharrows. Putting paint on the street sends a clear signal to both drivers and cyclists about how to share the road safely.

Legally, every road is a "Shared Roadway," whether the city puts signage there or not. Why don't we see more dotted purple on this map? Streets like 6th and 3rd have very narrow right lanes, requiring cyclists to make full-use of the right hand lane. All streets with a narrow curb lane need sharrows and signage. That way, drivers understand that cyclists are allowed the full use of the lane and will change lanes and safely pass. Currently, "taking the lane" on roads like this results in harassment from drivers. The city could easily change this with some paint and signs, but this map shows so very few of the dotted purple lines that would make that part of the plan.

There are no (zero!) proposed bike lanes throughout the area bounded by La Cienega on the west, Franklin on the north, Vermont on the east, and Adams to the south. This area is the heart of Los Angeles: it encompasses Mid-City, Hollywood, Koreatown, West Hollywood, Los Feliz, and more. It is unacceptable that this plan denies bike lanes to all of these communities and to the cultural centers of our city.

I understand that we will need political will to put down bike lanes and bike routes on most of the streets that appear as grey on this map. I echo the voices of many others who call on the Planning Department and LA DOT to make this bike plan more ambitious. We should not be afraid to remove traffic lanes or parking in order to make the city bikable. The community of cyclists will stand behind city planners if they have the ambition to request room for bikes at the cost of cars.

The design standards for bike lanes remain a concern. Most of the city's bike lanes run to the left of on-street parking, rendering them practically unusable. If a cyclist rides far enough to the left to avoid getting doored, she is probably riding outside the bike lane. The dangers of dooring are real and cyclists have died all over the country as a result of motorists opening their doors into bike lanes. This design flaw must not be repeated in the few places new bike lanes are proposed.

I have written this lengthy letter because I care enormously about the future of cycling in Los Angeles. I want to be able to get around this city on two wheels free of fear, and I want our roads to accomodate not just die-hards but also novices, elderly people, and children. This bike plan will have to be much, much more ambitious for that to happen.

Please keep me on distribution lists as the plan goes through its next stages. To sum up my letter: I support the idea of bicycle-friendly streets, but most of these streets do not accomplish the necessary major connections. I would like to see more Shared Roadways as long as the design standards are actually effective (i.e. sharrows). I would like the plan to aim higher so that we can remove parking and traffic lanes and improve more of the city's streets.

I will submit more route-specific comments via the website.

Thank you for your time.

Kristen "Herbie" Huff

Next steps: I have an idea. We should get blocks of people to rally behind specific roads for those website comments. LACBC mentioned some roads they believe should be moved out of the "unfeasible" category. I smell an internet letter-writing party...

I call Olympic.

My Public Comment at the LA Metro Board

I spoke before the LA Metro board two weeks ago about how I was almost hit by a Metro bus. The video explains all the details of the incident:



The male voice speaking after me is Mayor Villaraigosa. It was pretty thrilling to look him in the eye and tell my story. After I stepped down from the podium, several high-level reps from the metro gave me their cards and asked me to email them, including Chief Operating Officer Carolyn Flowers.

The size and formality of the room, as well as the presence of the County Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, all surprised me. I was expecting something more along the lines of the tiny, crowded, and informal Transportation Committee Meeting I had attended the week before. (You can see me at the very right edge of the picture, standing).

It's very easy to make a public comment before the Metro Board. All you do is arrive a few minutes before the meeting, fill out a public comment card, and then wait your turn. If there are a lot of cards, as was the case at this meeting, you will get one minute to speak, although they are usually pretty lax about letting people go over the time if they are actually getting somewhere.

I'm glad Stephen Box encouraged me to come speak and that he accompanied me to the meeting and made sure I talked to the right people. He said, and after my experience at the board meeting I agree, that the squeaky wheel gets the grease! My conviction to keep riding is renewed. Each time I ride, I contribute in a tiny, personal way to a reduction in air pollution, and to the education of other vehicles who learn how to share the road with me. My conviction to take accompanying political action has never been stronger. Each time I organize with my fellow cyclists and demand accountability from our elected representatives, we wield our political power to make a more bikable and livable Los Angeles possible through large-scale decisions that are made at the government level with public money. A better world will need both personal and political convictions.

Support Sharrows

The LACBC has drafted a letter to the mayor in support of sharrows. These are chevrons painted in the middle of the rightmost lane that indicate that the lane should be shared with cyclists. Many cyclists (including me) prefer them to bike lanes. Most of the bike lanes in LA feature parked cars to the right and the always impending danger of driver-side doors suddenly opening into the bike lane.

Sharrows are all over Portland and San Francisco and working great in those cities. Here in LA County, however, the only sharrows to be found are in Pasadena. (And Westwood, apparently - the above image is from an la.streetsblog.org article on the sharrows recently painted on the UCLA campus.)

Sharrows are so cheap that there's really no excuse they aren't on every single right-hand lane in Los Angeles. All they do is indicate something that's already the law: that all vehicles must share the road and that cyclists may occupy the full lane when their safety requires it.

Here's the text for the petition:

http://lacbc.wordpress.com/

There's no form to fill out, you just have to copy the text into your own email client.

Let's show the mayor that quite a few people support a more bikeable LA.

3 Morning Pages

Lately, it feels difficult to keep up with life. I injured my left arm somewhat seriously and have not been able to bike for the last seven weeks. Being deprived of what was my primary mode of transportation really put a damper on things, and put me in a funk that I'm just starting to shake off. Non-essential activities like writing for this blog have fallen by the wayside.

But I'm back! And here, in lieu of many half-conceived posts about the 2009 LA Bicycle Summit or modal equity or alternatives to capitalism or my revelations about the power of saying Hello or a million other topics that have run through my mind since January, are three morning pages that roughly encapsulate the form and content of my current life.

----------

4/16/2009

Whoa, I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. Had a headache from all those oreos and falling asleep dehydrated the night before. Checked the calendar, and had to reschedule my PT appointment because it was 9:30 and I would run at least 30 minutes late. C was not happy about being rushed and having a lot of work in front of her. We got there on time, but I was pretty out of it the whole ride. Then when she dropped me off, I forgot my running shoes. I had been all ready to turn around this shitty day by banging out that 9 mile run, but it's now pretty impossible with my shoes on the passenger seat and all. OK. New plan. Do morning pages (not a bad fate), text C that my shoes are in her car, read Clarice's friend's book, text C that my memoir class files are starred in gmail and ask if she has a chance to print them out, have lunch, bike to PT (need to get locks ready beforehand), coast back, go for run (2 - 3:30), come back and have plenty of time to call my mom and arrange ride for tomorrow, eat, read Clarice's book, stretch, maybe even do yoga, then ride the metro to class (need to get on at 6 and not be late this time). Have class, go home, the end.

Dillon's friends are talking in the living room. They are waking up, having a civil argument about who is going to drive who where. This guy does not want to wake up. I think it's the same guy who made me feel really icky yesterday with his comments on how all people are selfish and the media is "75% liberal." I was really thrown off by the things he said, didn't know how to respond to them but felt obligated to. He said "meat-eating" Americans would abuse a single-payer universal healthcare system. He kept interrupting me. He said that we are evolved to be selfish and greedy and communism will never work. I wanted to make a critique of global economic capitalism, and I managed to say that it has produced enormous inequality. But I didn't get to say that it's predatory and unfair. I made the point that the media supports the state. Dillon said that he sees a lot of trendy talk about causes but not a lot of people taking action to help the homeless around them. I tried to respond to him and say that I would be down to take action on local, local problems anytime. I am all about the local. This was also meant as a response to Billy's idea that people in college are idealistic but when it comes to taking care of themselves after college, those ideals take a backseat.

Anyway, as you can see the whole conversation stuck with me. Mainly because the chaotic force of Billy disrupted any sense I was making of it. It stunned me all night, left me with the question (which only Caroline Heldman might be able to answer): how can one speak to a person like that, already so convinced of his worldview and willing to be pushy and loud in espousing it? I want to blog about it. I also want to keep taking more actions, with my roommates, my neighbors in the apartment, the CRA-LA advisory committee meetings for rebuilding my neighborhood. It's been a theme of my life for quite some time now that I want to prove wrong all those people (my dad, guys like Billy) who claim that nobody really cares and anyway the actions of one person don't matter. That's not true. I'll be biking and saying hi and protecting pedestrians and eating vegan and monitoring local government. And working on attending the CRA meetings and talking more to my neighbors.

We mentioned that laziness, imperfection can hold us back (Dillon and I did). So it's important that I take care of my health, spiritually through friendships, family, and AA, physically by exercising, doing my PT, and eating well (no oreos all night!) and materially by taking care of money matters and trying not to be so stressed about that. I want to participate more, I've been feeling kind of removed and lazy the past week. Even though I got a lot of recruiting done yesterday, it still felt like staying inside, overeating, and being on the computer. Not good.

Let today unfold and let me be a part of the unfolding. (This is a prayer that I say every day). May I realized that life involves many people, places and things I don't control. Relieve me of the bondage of self, that I may better serve others. Take away my difficulties, that victory over them may bear witness to the power of powerlessness as a way of life. May I be humble and compassionate always, and may all beings be free from suffering.

Elaine hasn't called me back in a long time. Maybe she knows that I've been kind of stagnating. Maybe she is going through something. I hope she's OK.

Car-free Fridays!

The last Friday of every month is car-free Friday in Los Angeles, sponsored by the LACBC.

Apparently City Council President Eric Garcetti will be joining riders on their route from Hollywood to City Hall tomorrow morning.

I'll be riding from Pico-Union to West Hollywood at 3 pm if anyone wants to join me.

This is a nice, simple way for cyclists to focus our energy. I'd like to get one or two new people riding on the roads with me each month. The press release is right: we can build our energy, one person at a time, one ride at a time. Once a month can turn into once a week can turn into every day! Incremental change matters. We'll have that many more constituents on board when we talk about sharrows and bike lanes. We'll have that many more drivers that are used to sharing the road with bicycles.

Woo!

A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Gladly Do Again

This is only the second of Wallace's books that I've read, and I approached this text hoping for some resolutions to the seemingly irresolvable Infinite Jest. I finished Infinite Jest about a year ago but couldn't finish thinking about it. I could stop thinking about it for periods of time, but was perpetually working on a review of the book, perpetually trying to decide what I thought of it. Did I hate it? Was I moved by it? I was both, and could not let it go.

I find myself in a quite similar situation: I want to have something quite profound and final to say about A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, but instead I find I must live with it in my head (and in my bookbag), unable as I am to make the final move of placing it back on the shelf. Even just writing this post, I keep telling myself not to worry about including every observation I have about the book. If I didn't tell myself this, I'd be here forever and the post would never go up. Perhaps my inability to reach a conclusion (either in writing, i.e. a logical conclusion, or in reading, i.e. putting the book down and moving on to another) is a testament to the conclusiveness of Wallace's essays. They seem to make every observation that could be made; they anticipate every counterargument that could be advanced; they track the reader's every instinctive reaction. They are not unlike Infinite Jest in this sense: everything's in there.

Even taking a shallow look at the Table of Contents proves that Wallace can write about anything. (Oh God, I just sounded like one of the thousand male critics that have gay crushes on Wallace. I spent most of last year hating those critics and their substanceless praise for Infinite Jest. They had far more to say about the author's mental capacity than about the work itself. According to them, Wallace is "brilliant" and a "genius." He's our generation's Pynchon. He can write about anything.) The essays concern: 1. Amateur Tennis 2. Television and Contemporary Fiction 3. The Illinois State Fair 4. Poststructural Literary Criticism 5. Filmmaker David Lynch 6. Professional Tennis 7. A Caribbean Cruise. Damn. The most exciting page turn of the entire book, I submit, is from the last page of essay 3, in which Wallace gazes at the bulging belly of a yuppie suspended high in the Illinois air by the cables of a bungee-like carnival contraption; to the first page of essay 4, which begins "In the 1960s the poststructuralist metacritics came along and turned literary aesthetics on its head..."

Damn.

The two things that really excited me about this book, though, are that 1) Wallace has something optimistic and redeeming to say about television, which surprised me given the fact that the dystopia imagined in Infinite Jest revolves around a society whose members literally die because they cannot stop watching TV, and 2) Wallace doubts himself and even self-deprecates in these essays, which demonstrates that he is not the dick that his omniscient narrator in Infinite Jest often is.

Let me talk about 1) first. Essay 2, "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction" may be the piece of writing I have spent the most time discussing with friends, often going so far as to read chunks of the essay out loud. The essay's first major point is that Joe Briefcase, an average American watching six hours a day of TV (the average as of 1990), is a teleholic. Television promises to solve Joe's lonely life with shows full of excitement and interaction, while at the same time keeping Joe's life lonely by keeping him in front of the TV six hours a day. Wallace manages to make this point without writing off television as altogether evil; in fact, he professes his annoyance with critics who do so. Conclusion: read this essay. This is the most important thing I will say in this post. You will learn about who you are when you sit before the large flickering screens that occupy a percentage of our lives second only to sleep. You can find it online here, but I recommend getting your hands on a copy of the book so that you don't have to experience the dissonance of reading this essay in front of a screen not dissimilar from a TV screen.

As I mentioned above, I'm also very glad to learn that Wallace can displace and doubt his own point of view. He is culpable and fallible in these essays. In essays 3 and 7, which were both journalistic assignments from Harper's magazine, he's present in the first-person far more than a conventional reporter. Notably, in these appearances he's more often bumbling than anything else: losing at chess to a 9-year old girl, getting nauseous with fear just looking at carnival rides, trying to flirt with the female staffer who makes his bed on the cruise.

This deprecating self-consciousness has twofold significance for me. First, it might save Infinite Jest. A few other tidbits from A Supposedly Fun Thing helped: for example, Wallace's admiration for what he decides is pure expressionism in David Lynch's movies combined with extra information about his junior tennis career and his personal entertainment consumption habits allow one to recast Infinite Jest as a kind of fictionalized autobiography. This makes its dystopia less snide, more forgivable for being the author's personal future nightmare. It deflates what originally seemed to be a claim that this nightmare awaited us all, as a society. Perhaps DFW just wants to express his fears.

The main difficulty in reading Infinite Jest as expressionism without also reading A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again is IJ's omniscient narrator. The problem of the narrator really plagued IJ: sometimes the narrator appears to be Hal, sometimes the story is told from Joelle's point of view, sometimes the narrator is omniscient. Worst of all, the omniscient narrator displays a subtle-yet-present brand of misogyny and homophobia. He's an asshole, when you really look. It becomes very hard to like Infinite Jest if one concludes that it endorses these oppressive (and sometimes just downright mean) attitudes. The self-deprecating narrator that speaks in A Supposedly Fun Thing introduces the possibility that IJ's omniscient narrator could be imperfect and wrong just like the rest of us, and perhaps DFW just wanted to display that narrator in all his fucked-up ideologies as well as his "brilliant" and "genius" observations.

Second, the fallible and clumsy narrator is just one key element of what I believe is really DFW's enduring gift to us all: his style. This narrator allows him to be intellectual and readable at the same time. He can discuss poststructural metacriticism in all its jargon-y details, but he eventually comes back down to a kind of individualized layman's truth:

"For those of us civilians who know in our gut that writing is an act of communication between one human being and another, the whole question seems sort of arcane."

He can make up words and employ an enormous vocabulary, use layers of footnotes and a seemingly endless reserve of knowledge and research, but often his best points are made after his famously long and diagrammable sentences, in a short and plain summary sentence:

... Still, for the fact that individual American human beings are consuming vulgar, prurient, dumb stuff at the astounding average per-household dose of six hours a day - for this both TV and we need to answer. We are responsible basically because nobody is holding any weapons on us forcing us to spend amounts of time second only to sleep doing something that is, when you come right down to it, not good for us. Sorry to be a killjoy, but there it is: six hours a day is not good.

Wallace's human narrator - himself - tones down some of his most condemning points about humanity. When the statement involves a personal expression of Wallace's, we read it not as ideological tome but as unavoidable, real, human:

... the promise to sate the part of me that always and only WANTS - is the central fantasy the [cruiseliner's] brochure is selling. The thing to notice is that the real fantasy here isn't that this promise will be kept, but that such a promise is keepable at all. This is a big one, this lie. And of course, I want to believe it - fuck the Buddha - I want to believe that maybe this Ultimate Fantasy Vacation will be enough pampering, that this time the luxury and pleasure will be so completely and faultlessly administered that my Infantile part will be sated.

Here Wallace can't help but interject his own feelings, even going so far as to use the uncharacteristic and not very diagrammable dash. Fuck the buddha, he says, and it makes concrete this detailed and abstract point about the human condition.

I'm not done with this book (well, I have read the whole thing, but that's not what I mean) and I'm not done with Wallace, I can tell. This is embarassing, but when I am feeling delusions of grandeur I sometimes think that he is the Eliot to my Crane. I can't seem to get past him.